San Juan County continues public hearing on Hannah Heights water franchise after neighbors raise aquifer, notice concerns

San Juan County Council continued to Oct. 6 a public hearing on a proposed ordinance that would grant a nonexclusive franchise for water distribution and transmission facilities to Hannah Heights Owners Association. The hearing drew multiple hours of public testimony September 23, with proponents describing the franchise as a necessary step to bring safe drinking water to 44 homes, and neighbors saying they were insufficiently notified and worried large‑scale groundwater extraction could impair nearby wells.

Colin Huntermer, county public works, told the council the franchise defines terms for use of county roadway rights‑of‑way and sets standards for construction and maintenance; it does not grant water rights or set how much water may be extracted. “This franchise grants the franchisee the right and privilege and authority to locate, construct, operate, maintain, and replace, and use its facilities,” Huntermer said, adding that water quantity, well location and state permits remain separate processes handled by state agencies.

Representatives of Hannah Heights said the community has lived with a contaminated public well for years. Richard Daley, speaking for the Hannah Heights board, told the council that the franchise is “one step along the way” to deliver drinking water from a property the HOA bought on Bailey Hill Road to a storage tank, and that residents hope to have water at tap by May if approvals and design proceed. Kyle Loring, the HOA’s attorney, asked the council to accept certain contractual clarifications limiting the HOA’s liability for delays or events outside of its control; county staff said the county’s standard franchise language was reviewed by the prosecutor and recommended to remain in the form presented.

Nearby residents testified at length that the proposed system could draw water from a different local aquifer and possibly move relatively large volumes of water (the Ecology permit application cited a cap of 22.5 gallons per minute and the potential to drill up to three wells). Pamela Gross said the HOA’s proposed water right and production capacity were “very different from the needs of a single family home,” and said several neighbors had not received timely notice of well testing. Retired mining engineer Tim Acton and long‑time resident Charles Anderson emphasized the area contains distinct drainage aquifers and asked the council to postpone action until Ecology issues results of pump tests and draft permits.

Huntermer and other staff told the council they could not address most state water‑right questions and pointed to Department of Ecology processes for monitoring and remedies; they said neighbors are protected by Ecology’s processes, including senior water rights and impairment determinations. Huntermer said the county’s role is limited to managing the right‑of‑way aspects of the franchise.

Council members pressed staff for a clear timeline of the remaining steps (state permit review, right‑of‑way permits, engineering plans) and asked for staff from other county departments, including the county’s water‑related staff, to meet with neighbors and applicants. Councilmember Paulson requested an informational sheet laying out the sequence of agency approvals and the potential impacts of county timing on state review. Paulson moved to continue the hearing to the council’s Oct. 6 meeting to allow staff briefings and more neighbor outreach; the council approved the continuation.

The continuation preserves the council’s opportunity to hear further information from county staff and the state and to review any additional testing or monitoring data from Ecology before acting on the franchise ordinance. No formal decision on the franchise was made September 23.